This invention arises as a result of the ubiquitous societal need to increase the size and number of available cells for short term and long term detainment and correctional facilities in order to accommodate the ever growing population of people behind bars. Currently, by and large, detainment and correctional facilities of all genres suffer overcrowded inmate populations residing under conditions that often compromise health and safety and fail to provide even a scintilla of dignity to the incarcerated no matter how egregious the event was that placed the inmate there. Many facilities, and the individual cells within those facilities, are in need of rehabilitation, enlarging and/or reconstruction; and with the ever increasing inmate population, there is an even greater demand for new facilities with more cells. All levels of government that are in charge of correctional and detainment facilities are falling well short of obvious their responsibilities.
The industry has continuously tried to improve the traditional methods of building prisons with concerns focused on construction time, design and cost. Traditional methods of design, construction and installation of modern correctional facility cells resulted in scheduling challenges and delays. These methods required one of two slow and cumbersome processes: either on-site welding for construction and installation; or off-site construction, then installation using large cranes to lower the cells through an open roof. The cell fronts in traditional methods also required installation early in the process. This prevented the scheduling of other construction critical items such as the roof, multi-level floors, electrical, plumbing and air conditioning systems, which were all dependent on the cell front being in place. The traditional methods for building cell fronts were also slow due to on demand manufacturing with long delivery time frames. All of these flaws resulted in an overall lengthy, uncertain and costly facility construction process.
Traditional cell fronts that were constructed off-site also had further flaws, including they did not allow for tolerances that vary in leveling, plumbness and dimensions. This could result is the need for significant on-site modifications. The size of the cell front would prohibit its use in restoration projects unless those projects where specifically designed to accommodate the cell front. Furthermore, the design of these cells would make installation virtually impossible unless the second floor was installed after lower level cell fronts were installed. This is so because most modern correctional facilities today have housing units that have cells around the perimeter of a dayroom with a second level mezzanine of cells. The second level walkway is an extension of the ceiling of the lower level cell and second level floor. This is usually at a height of 8′ with cell front fitting tight against floors. Installation of a cell front on the first floor after installation of the second floor would be extremely cumbersome if not completely impractical.